Split a hostname into labels without WHOIS or ownership data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses only what the tool does not return (WHOIS/ownership data), but does not describe what the output looks like, how it processes the various input types, whether it performs any validation, or what side effects (if any) occur. Given the heterogeneous parameter list, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes a meaningful constraint: the action, the object, and the excluded data category. It is highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not tell an agent which parameter to provide, whether the parameters are mutually exclusive or combinable, or what the return value looks like. The schema covers parameter descriptions, but the overall invocation contract is underspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'hostname' without explicitly mapping to the 'host' parameter or explaining how 'url', 'json', and 'zone' are handled. The schema itself already provides clear descriptions for each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Split'), resource ('hostname'), and explicitly scopes the tool away from WHOIS/ownership data. This clearly distinguishes it from any sibling tools that would provide ownership information. However, the input schema lists four heterogeneous parameters (url, host, json, zone), and the description does not clarify how these relate to the stated purpose, creating some ambiguity about the tool's full scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'without WHOIS or ownership data' implies a contrast, but no alternative tool is named and no condition is given. It also fails to explain whether to pass 'url' or 'host' or how 'json' and 'zone' fit into the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping concerns: citation, normalize-url, and domain-shape all analyze URLs/hostnames, while timezone, utc-time, and iana-zones all relate to time. The purpose of compatibility is vague and could be confused with the URL inspection tools. Only a few tools like slug-ok and validate-json are clearly distinct.
All names use lowercase hyphenation, which is consistent, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb phrases (normalize-url, inspect-robots, validate-json), while others are bare nouns (citation, compatibility, timezone). There is no unified verb_noun convention, though the names remain readable.
Eleven tools is not an unreasonable count by itself, but the tool set is unfocused for a server named 'Slug character check.' Most tools address unrelated concerns such as time, URLs, HTTP status, and JSON, making the collection feel padded rather than purpose-built.
The server lacks a coherent domain: slug checking has only one thin tool, URL utilities have no encoding/decoding or query-param handling, and time utilities lack conversions or formatting options. For any single stated purpose, the surface has significant gaps and no end-to-end workflow.